Large Hadron Collider Creates Incredibly Dense Primordial Matter

[CardinalPiggles]

SNIP

haha im sorry, but its like a contagion.

 

[BlueSinbad]

And so it begins.

Gentlemen, we are on the precipice of a new beginning.

What? Don't look at me like that...

The fact that you said this, and have a penguin as your avatar, makes this hilarious, and I just don't know why!

On Topic: Yay gooo!

 

[Wieke]

Can we sign a petition or something to get people to stop fucking with things that can decimate humanity?

Seriously. I'm actually a tad bit surprised this substance didn't do any damage to the world.

The substance was made when 2 lead ions collided. Which each weigh about 3.4*10^-25 kg each. No effin way such a substance would be able to "damage" the world.

Cern - The safety of the LHC [http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/lhc/safety-en.html] (In short each second 10 million cosmic rays of equal or greater power than the LHC experiments bombard the atmosphere. Any potential "damage" done by the LHC would be done by these rays literately billions of years ago.)

I'm pretty tired of all those ignorant anti-science scaremongers. You guys do realize that CERN invented hypertext (they made the first web page)? And now they got to halt their research just because you're to lazy to calm your fears with a bit of knowledge? They did the research. They know that it's absolutely safe. They even put up a nice web page (one of their own inventions) addressing each of these pathetic claims individually. But no, you gotta whine about how it isn't safe just because you failed to do a simple little google search [http://lmgtfy.com/?q=lhc+safety&l=1].

I'm now gonna continue to ***** about this just to spite you.

Take your whiny three year old attitude out of here and learn to take humorous statements with a grain of salt. You seem like a smart person, but you may have missed a small subtlety class.

Here's a quick lesson. You're in a circle with a few friends and someone tells a joke but mispronounces a word or makes some sort of grammar mistake. You cut him off midstream, and then explain to him in every detail about what he did wrong.

Don't do that. I didn't think they were actually tampering with that dangerous of material. I'm also not the kind of tool that google searches and analyzes every small detail before I make an off hand comment about it.

This one was free of charge.

My apologies for jumping down your throat. Sometimes it can be difficult to differentiate between a satirical statement and a literal one, especially when dealing with text only communication.

 

[F'Angus]

Well, Awesome

 

[Para199x]

look i have nothing good to say about the hadron collider but i understand that some people want to know things that badly but my question is why do they need more then one? thats just asking for a problem one miss-hap or terrorist and bam! nothing.... it scares me i don't care how careful they are.

You realise if there was a problem or a mis-hap all that would happen would be that the collider would be damaged right? Also you need several because they have energy ranges, if you don't find a predicted particle in one energy range you need another collider to look for it elsewhere

 

[Findlebob]

Can someone conferm this for me, has it finally done what it was bloody suposed to do?

 

[Para199x]

I'm not one making the claim, burden of proof doesn't lie on me.

You're making the claim there is no god(s) and Theists are making the claim there is. Agnostics are the ones making no claims and also therefore the only ones not needing to supply any evidence to support their position.

Except im not making a claim that there is no god. Im making a claim, that claim that gods exists, is (most likely, of course) false. Thats not the same.

So, tell me, do any deities exist?

There is no evidence that they do, thus we can assume that they dont.

So rather than search for the evidence, you find it better to assume they don't and won't offer any evidence in support of your side either?

'They don't have any evidence, therefore I will assume none exists.'

You're welcome to your opinion, but I'll stick to looking for answers.

snip

That's basically scientific method, you assume the simplest case until there is evidence otherwise, that doesn't mean you don't look for evidence for things you've never seen but you don't try to prove they DON'T exist because that's impossible.

 

[Para199x]

So, tell me, do any deities exist?

Youve missed the point, anyway you two, back to topic k thanks.

So with this gluon being hotter than the sun, could it not be used toward making nuclear fusion possible?

With it being so dense, it's not really possible to use it to heat anything, and the quantities it's producible in and the amount of energy it requires, you're better off trying to reach ignition point using a coal fire

 

[Beryl77]

I wonder now, would it be possible to use this as an energy source?

 

[MonocleClaire]

I saw 'primordial matter' and I instantly thought "EVERYONE GETS HUGGED AND TURNS INTO TANG".

I think I need to turn of End of Eva and go to bed.

 

[Para199x]

snip

I can prove something doesn't exist; I guarantee you something doesn't currently exist that, when it does exist, makes everything appear pink to everyone.

Well you could do that with contact lenses and colouring the middle pink, how do you know that some alien race hasn't made that?

Or an atom or molecule which happens to have absorption resonances with all the visible light spectrum and remits it all as pink, or a pink light bulb. Not having seen something which does something is not proof

 

[MonocleClaire]

snip

A device created on Earth that when used on a koala will transform the into a huge, drunken and horny bear whose purpose in life is to travel to New York and fuck a lady of the night while being showered in gold flakes and honey.

 

[Para199x]

snip

A device created on Earth that when used on a koala will transform the into a huge, drunken and horny bear whose purpose in life is to travel to New York and fuck a lady of the night while being showered in gold flakes and honey.

Taking my argument to a ridiculous extreme to refute it is a logical fallacy, however, you still can not know that that doesn't exist. Do you know everything which exists on Earth? I don't, nobody does. When you've finished searching the globe to show it's not there, remember it could have just been moving around the globe and you'd never see it. What about in the deep ocean? What if it was created by an advanced alien race and has been taken to another planet or put in the earth's core.

I'm pretty sure this thing doesn't exist and until somebody gives me evidence it does I wont believe that it exists, but that's the point I'm making. You can't ever know something that hasn't been discovered doesn't exist, you can only show something does exist, and so the burden of proof is on the theists

 

[DasDestroyer]

snip

A device created on Earth that when used on a koala will transform the into a huge, drunken and horny bear whose purpose in life is to travel to New York and fuck a lady of the night while being showered in gold flakes and honey.

How do you know that that doesn't exist? Perhaps I invented one myself, and it lies in my basement, unused, simply because I don't want to have to pay for the bear's ticket to new york.

 

[Lenin211]

My science isn't great either, surely it's a bit rich referring to a black hole as a "known object"... correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't those still theoretical? Like, by their very nature are almost impossible to confirm existing?

We can observe Black holes in space by the way they bend light.

 

[Para199x]

snip

I can prove something doesn't exist; I guarantee you something doesn't currently exist that, when it does exist, makes everything appear pink to everyone.

Well you could do that with contact lenses and colouring the middle pink, how do you know that some alien race hasn't made that?

Or an atom or molecule which happens to have absorption resonances with all the visible light spectrum and remits it all as pink, or a pink light bulb. Not having seen something which does something is not proof

Because everything isn't pink to everyone right now.

My words were: "I guarantee you something doesn't currently exist." If it did, everything would be pink. Everything isn't pink. So it doesn't exist.

Apologies I misread, so can you prove that it is not the case that all we observe is different shades of pink and we have learned to distinguish the different shades it produces from different parts of the visible spectrum. Or can you know with certainty that, that isn't the case but there isn't also something else which exists which makes me and you immune to it's effects. Or everyone on Earth.

However well done i had to think for a bit there.

 

[Para199x]

snip

Alright, rather than continually add to that, let's use a simple example; there is no visible 40ft long shark in my soda can.

BAM.

The problem there is that's a problem of detection, because you can't detect it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, there could be a 40ft long shark in your soda can, unfortunately you've limited yourself to the one detection method.